Read the actual study cited by that clickbait article. Racism at Uber is vastly smaller than racism via traditional taxis.
And that makes racism more acceptable?
Also I guess you are not familiar with The Atlantic.
It is a 160 year old institution, it is very well-respected. Past writers include Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Harriet Beacher Stowe. It does not trade in Clickbait.
For reference on the logical fallacies used in your comment, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy.
Racism isn't like homeopathy, where any quantity at all has the same effect. More is worse, less is better.
In that study, the median black taxi rider is passed by 2 taxis before being picked up, vs 0 for the median white (see fig A.6). The difference for Uber is not remotely as large.
The rest of your comment is basically the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.
An article being a "dud" is highly subjective, even if you yourself haven't found an article to be a worthwhile read does not qualify qualify an article as "clickbait".
There is nothing sensational in the article, it is simply discussing findings in a study.
The Atlantic has actually fared pretty well:
[1] "The Atlantic saw the highest increase in circulation, expanding slightly by 2% in 2015."
http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/news-magazines-fact-she...
This 2016 is the most recent data available.
I haven't. I'm simply pointing out that their venerability doesn't guarantee that everything they put out is of the highest caliber. The bevy of think (or whine) pieces it has published about millennials and safe spaces speaks to that, I feel.
>There is nothing sensational in the article, it is simply discussing findings in a study.
Which is sufficient as a rebuttal to the claim that it is clickbait.
When I just opened up the Atlantic now, it showed me ads -- err, "content" -- from Revcontent, which is some of the worst clickbait on the Internet.